Does everyone have the potential for greatness?

[Thales]

So you're saying that anybody, if they trained hard enough, can become say, an Olympic gold medalist 100 meter dasher, or a marathon winner, or a Bobby Fischer?

I'm sorry but I think that while it takes a lot of dedication to hard work to realize one's potential, that doesn't automatically mean everyone possesses the same capacities. If I have a hundred people that all train as hard as they can for something, chances are at the end of the day some people are just going to be better than others (whether it's due to genetics, intelligence, personality, training methods, or whatever else that doesn't have anything to do with work ethics).

But of course, all one hundred would probably be experts at their respective fields relative to an average folk.

I agree with you on this. I don't think anyone can be great. I will add the caveat that if you can somehow improve your physical and mental being, if that were possible, or to the extent it's possible, then you can move closer to being great.

[Johnny]

Nope. I don't do your research for you. It's your claim. And "most" is not "everyone" anyway.

Well I'm sorry I don't have the journal references here at the tip of my finger. I have come across the Scientific American articles citing the studies from peer reviewed journals and I will certainly find it for you. I thought matus1976 in the past has posted some of these references?

Edited August 12, 2007 by Johnny

[Johnny]

So you're saying that anybody, if they trained hard enough, can become say, an Olympic gold medalist 100 meter dasher, or a marathon winner, or a Bobby Fischer?

I'm sorry but I think that while it takes a lot of dedication to hard work to realize one's potential, that doesn't automatically mean everyone possesses the same capacities. If I have a hundred people that all train as hard as they can for something, chances are at the end of the day some people are just going to be better than others (whether it's due to genetics, intelligence, personality, training methods, or whatever else that doesn't have anything to do with work ethics).

But of course, all one hundred would probably be experts at their respective fields relative to an average folk.

Well Moebius I don't presume to say we all have the same physical capacity. Certainly some people have a mentally handicap or others are at a physical disadvantage. But if it comes to mental capacity given no physiological defects, then yes, if you train hard enough (given your physical limitations) you will attain greatness. I would put athletics in a category entirely on its own. You dont need to be athletic to play music well. Just not be deaf or mentally handicapped and still have your limbs.

And rationalbiker on the physical aspect, unless your hands are freakishly small and you have some kind of physical handicap, then I doubt your fingers are any impediment to playing guitar. Guitars were designed to meet the average size of a human being's hand, and instruments can be customized to meet the specific needs of a person's physical size. My hands are not large at all, but I can play the bass just fine.

But curious Moebius you include "personality and training methods". Personality is largely a product of one's environment and using inefficient training methods will undoubtedly leave one at a disadvantage over another. That is why I previoiusly said "directed" study. Playing the same guitar lick over and over again is not a good training method. If say you have a personality that leads you to easily give up on your training, that is a mental hurdle that you would be capable of overcoming. No one is incapable of changing their personality unless they suffer from some physiological handicap like schizophrenia.

[Johnny]

Well I'm sorry I don't have the journal references here at the tip of my finger. I have come across the Scientific American articles citing the studies from peer reviewed journals and I will certainly find it for you. I thought matus1976 in the past has posted some of these references?

Well here's the article I had read in Scientific American:

http://scientificamerican.com/print_versio...F9E83414B7F4945

[RationalBiker]

And rationalbiker on the physical aspect, unless your hands are freakishly small and you have some kind of physical handicap, then I doubt your fingers are any impediment to playing guitar.

Hmm, so you do. I'm sure you know better than me what my hands are capable of. I doubt you are as good a bass player as you claim. Since I've never heard you play, and you have never seen my hands, I suppose each claim is equally without merit.

Until you stop making unwarranted assumptions, I'm through discussing this with you.

Edited August 12, 2007 by RationalBiker

[Johnny]

Hmm, so you do. I'm sure you know better than me what my hands are capable of. I doubt you are as good a bass player as you claim. Since I've never heard you play, and you have never seen my hands, I suppose each claim is equally without merit.

Until you stop making unwarranted assumptions, I'm through discussing this with you.

Wow. Ok. Are you always this hostile? If your assumptions are of equal merit to mine I suppose I'm also through discussing this with you until you stop making unwarranted assumptions.

What about the scientific American link I put. Is that an unwarranted assumption without merit? Are you just going to show further intellectual evasion?

What a coward.

[fletch]

But if it comes to mental capacity given no physiological defects, then yes, if you train hard enough (given your physical limitations) you will attain greatness. I would put athletics in a category entirely on its own. You dont need to be athletic to play music well. Just not be deaf or mentally handicapped and still have your limbs.

I dont think effort, practice or study is enough. No one is going to put forth the effort needed to achieve greatness without first having the desire to do so. You must first have an interest in a particular field before you put forth the effort to master it. If you could simply compel someone to work hard enough at something or study hard enough at something, greatness would be the legacy of totalitarianism. In fact, the opposite is true. It is in fact the interest or desire that propels the effort. I would never put forth the effort needed to become a great guitar player because I have no desire whatsoever to play the guitar. If I were somehow compelled to practice or forced myself to learn how to play, I would probably be decent at it, but I would never be great. Practice would be a burden to me not a pleasure. I would live for those moments when I could tear myself away from it rather than play it. I see examples of this where I work. I see lots of people who do jobs that they dont particularly enjoy doing. They do the least they can do to get by. Such people are hardly destined for anything close to greatness. Then there are those who truly love what they do. They come to work early and stay later than they have to. It is their love of what they do that leads them to dedicate themselves to doing the best that they can--sometimes to the point of greatness.

Even the most motivated of men are unlikely to devote themselves to something in which they have no innate interest. If you first love what you are doing, you will devote yourself to it. If you devote yourself to something you love, you are certainly far more likely to master it.

[Johnny]

I dont think effort, practice or study is enough. No one is going to put forth the effort needed to achieve greatness without first having the desire to do so.

Of course fletch! I don't dispute that! I believe I said what we value in life determines how we choose to use our time. If you don't value being a great musician but value time with your friends and family more you won't have the desire to devote the time to be a great musician. What you desire is what is ultimately important as that is the path to your happiness.

If you could simply compel someone to work hard enough at something or study hard enough at something, greatness would be the legacy of totalitarianism.

Um..........ok. Did I ever advocate we force people to become great? How odd you would think I said or meant that.

[fletch]

Um..........ok. Did I ever advocate we force people to become great? How odd you would think I said or meant that.

I didnt mean to suggest that you had. I was simply trying to stress the importance of an individuals personal motivation to achieving greatness.

[Johnny]

I didnt mean to suggest that you had. I was simply trying to stress the importance of an individuals personal motivation to achieving greatness.

Ahh, ok then I definitely agree with you. No motivation will certainly hinder one achieving greatness.

[RationalBiker]

Wow. Ok. Are you always this hostile?

No, I reserve that for folks who have twice insinuated or accused me of being dishonest or evading.

1) "However if you say you "gave it your best" while learning to play guitar but you still don't match up to people like Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen leads me to believe you probably didn't give it your best."

and

2) "And rationalbiker on the physical aspect, unless your hands are freakishly small and you have some kind of physical handicap, then I doubt your fingers are any impediment to playing guitar."

If you had stuck to your argument, rather than commmenting on me, my motivation, my ability to recognize the reality of my efforts and capability, or my hands, none of this would be an issue.

If your assumptions

The point of my posts, particularly the previous one, is that I'm not making assumptions, you are. I have no idea what your bass playing is like, so I have no basis for making a claim about it. You on the other hand, have come to two conclusions about me without evidence warranting such claims. And then you unequivocally insult me by calling me a coward.

[Johnny]

No, I reserve that for folks who have twice insinuated or accused me of being dishonest or evading.

1) "However if you say you "gave it your best" while learning to play guitar but you still don't match up to people like Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen leads me to believe you probably didn't give it your best."

and

2) "And rationalbiker on the physical aspect, unless your hands are freakishly small and you have some kind of physical handicap, then I doubt your fingers are any impediment to playing guitar."

If you had stuck to your argument, rather than commmenting on me, my motivation, my ability to recognize the reality of my efforts and capability, or my hands, none of this would be an issue.

The point of my posts, particularly the previous one, is that I'm not making assumptions, you are. I have no idea what your bass playing is like, so I have no basis for making a claim about it. You on the other hand, have come to two conclusions about me without evidence warranting such claims. And then you unequivocally insult me by calling me a coward.

Your claims are implausible which is why doubt them. Having too small a pair of hands to play the guitar presumes you have hands that fall so below the average, that they would be freakishly small. The spacing of a guitar's frets are no where near as spaced apart as a bass guitar's frets so your claim your hands are too small for even the guitar is dubious. I've also never met anyone who honestly put forth the effort towards directed study of the guitar and did not see positive results which can only lead me to conclude you are either mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, or being dishonest with yourself about the devotion you gave towards playing the guitar.

[Matus1976]

No you're missing my point. You speak of an "objective" standard of greatness that's not based on a relative criteria -- the 5 minute mile. I was merely pointing out that the said criteria is in fact chosen in the first place because of its relative difficulty in the first place. Hence it is, in fact, still a relative scale. The point being that the standard being relative is not mutually exclusive with it being objective.

Another point is that the number you chose was quite arbitrary. Is there any objective reason why a 5 minute mile is the standard for greatness? Because most people can do it if they train hard enough? So why not choose something like, say, an under 4 minute mile (or an under 10 second one hundred meter dash, or whatever), where most people, even if they train very hard, probably would not be able to do? Wouldn't that be closer to greatness?

So no, I am not judging "greatness" based on potential, but rather on achievement. As in, being able to achieve something that few others can. Hence the relative scale.

And again, this is a very 2nd handed attitude, what if you were the last human on the planet, and you were able to run a 4 minute mile? Would it still be a 'great' achievement? My point is, regardless of whether other people are around or other people are doing it, some thing that takes years of dedicated effort and study to accomplish, even if everyone could accomplish, is still a great achievement. The 5 minute mile was chosen because it requires alot of directed effort and training to achieve, maybe 4 minute would be better, but certainly a 30 minute mile wouldn't be, because it requires no effort and training to achieve. I am basing 'great' on an objective benchmark that takes years of directed effort and study to achieve, which I think is really the only proper rational definition for it for an independent human being, you are basing it on what other people can do. I have no interest in being 'better than other people' at the things I develop my skills in, but only interested in being really good at them for my own sake to achieve my own goals, I could not care less what other people are capable of and what bracket or percentage I fall in. As Aristotle wrote, a proper sense of one's self must be based on a reverent love for the truth. Considering one's self 'great' at something thus requires a rational objective assesment of what 'great' is and also where you stand in that continuum.

[RationalBiker]

Your claims are implausible which is why doubt them. Having too small a pair of hands to play the guitar presumes you have hands that fall so below the average, that they would be freakishly small.

If you are going to assail my claims as implausible, it's best that you get them right. I never said that my hands were too small to play the guitar, I said they were too small to play the guitar great. While you recognize, at least I think you recognize, that more extreme physical limitations can inhibit ability, you appear to refuse to recognize that less severe physical limitations can impact a person's ability or potential.

I've also never met anyone who honestly put forth the effort towards directed study of the guitar and did not see positive results which can only lead me to conclude you are either mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, or being dishonest with yourself about the devotion you gave towards playing the guitar.

Your original claim was that you doubted that I put forth my "best effort". From that post, it appears that your definition of "best effort" is one that requires a person to forsake all other things in life, family, friends, food and sleep. In most instances, this is not a rational approach, nor one that "best effort" need be restricted to. Now whether or not you have met anyone in your travels that hasn't done X does not make something plausible or implausible for everyone else, unless you have met everyone on the planet.

[Johnny]

If you are going to assail my claims as implausible, it's best that you get them right. I never said that my hands were too small to play the guitar, I said they were too small to play the guitar great.

Which again is completely implausible which is why I have doubted your claim. Women guitarists who are virtuosos don't have any bigger hands then I presume you, a male. I You are presuming guitars were designed for people with big hands, they were not. How small are your hands exactly? At least let's hear the dimensions of your hand size and let's compare them to other guitar virtuosos if you're going to start using your hand size as an excuse for you not being able to attain greatness. Do you think Mozart at age 6 had too small a hands to be considered a musical prodigy? Did he anxiously await to see if his hands would grow large enough for him to be great at playing the piano? Who do you think musical instrument makers design their instruments for? Unless you have hands that are freakishly small, then you don't know what you're talking about and would rather accost me for pointing out the absurdity in your claims.

Your original claim was that you doubted that I put forth my "best effort". From that post, it appears that your definition of "best effort" is one that requires a person to forsake all other things in life, family, friends, food and sleep. In most instances, this is not a rational approach

Rational approach based on what standard? Yours? No one has any "rational" obligation to spend their time with friends or family. The great geniuses of human history have generally been socially inept. This is what people who have achieved greatness have done. How many hours a day did you play guitar?

[Matus1976]

So you're saying that anybody, if they trained hard enough, can become say, an Olympic gold medalist 100 meter dasher, or a marathon winner, or a Bobby Fischer?

I highly suggest reading the articles I referenced, all available scientific evidence does in fact suggest that virtually anyone with a normal healthy human mind could become a Bobby Fischer, and also probably a 100 meter dasher or a marathon winner. I would not claim, however, that virtually anyone can be an olympic gold medalist, since that scale is relative to particular other people, instead of an objective standard. One can still be a 'great' athlete, but not be an Olympic gold medalist. Virtually anyone can become 'great' or at the very lest an 'expert' on virtually anything, but they can not necessarily be better than *everyone* else, since that is where physiological differences most directly manifest themselves. However, as an objectivist, why would it matter how good you are compared to other people? You can still be great without being the 'best in the whole world'

The Scientific American article on the "Expert Mind" can be found here.

http://scientificamerican.com/print_versio...F9E83414B7F4945

Here are some relevant excerpts on chess:

A Proliferation of Prodigies

The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build these structures in the mind. Simon coined a psychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that it takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field. Even child prodigies, such as Gauss in mathematics, Mozart in music and Bobby Fischer in chess, must have made an equivalent effort, perhaps by starting earlier and working harder than others.

the proliferation of chess prodigies in recent years merely reflects the advent of computer-based training methods that let children study far more master games and to play far more frequently against master-strength programs than their forerunners could typically manage. Fischer made a sensation when he achieved the grandmaster title at age 15, in 1958; today's record-holder, Sergey Karjakin of Ukraine, earned it at 12 years, seven months

Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time. It is interesting to note that time spent playing chess, even in tournaments, appears to contribute less than such study to a player's progress; the main training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study.�

At this point, many skeptics will finally lose patience. Surely, they will say, it takes more to get to Carnegie Hall than practice, practice, practice. Yet this belief in the importance of innate talent, strongest perhaps among the experts themselves and their trainers, is strangely lacking in hard evidence to substantiate it. In 2002 Gobet conducted a study of British chess players ranging from amateurs to grandmasters and found no connection at all between their playing strengths and their visual-spatial abilities, as measured by shape-memory tests.

Although nobody has yet been able to predict who will become a great expert in any field, a notable experiment has shown the possibility of deliberately creating one. L¿szl¿ Polg¿r, an educator in Hungary, homeschooled his three daughters in chess, assigning as much as six hours of work a day, producing one international master and two grandmasters--the strongest chess-playing siblings in history. The youngest Polg¿r, 30-year-old Judit, is now ranked 14th in the world. The Polg¿r experiment proved two things: that grandmasters can be reared and that women can be grandmasters. It is no coincidence that the incidence of chess prodigies multiplied after L¿szl¿ Polg¿r published a book on chess education. The number of musical prodigies underwent a similar increase after Mozart's father did the equivalent two centuries earlier.

etc

[Matus1976]

If you are going to assail my claims as implausible, it's best that you get them right. I never said that my hands were too small to play the guitar, I said they were too small to play the guitar great. While you recognize, at least I think you recognize, that more extreme physical limitations can inhibit ability, you appear to refuse to recognize that less severe physical limitations can impact a person's ability or potential.

Your original claim was that you doubted that I put forth my "best effort". From that post, it appears that your definition of "best effort" is one that requires a person to forsake all other things in life, family, friends, food and sleep. In most instances, this is not a rational approach, nor one that "best effort" need be restricted to. Now whether or not you have met anyone in your travels that hasn't done X does not make something plausible or implausible for everyone else, unless you have met everyone on the planet.

Rational biker, are you then asserting that one must have large hands in order to play guitar 'great'? That would seem to me to imply that to play guitar great would require the advantage large hands gives, probably of playing more distant notes in less time, however, is that really the requirement of being a great guitarist?

If you are talking about becoming a 'great' guitarist you are really going to have to put a 'best effort' to it. That best effort is probably going to be at least 10 years of *full time study* of directed practice and effort where you are constantly pushing yourself to excel beyond your previous limitations. It is a difficult and very demanding kind of practice. As Johnny notes, many of the 'greatest' of particular fields in the world end up abandoning 'normal' social conventions. Newton, on his death bed, was reported to have replied, when asked what his greatest achievement was, was that he died a virgin. Tesla was well known for having very few friends and never having a girlfriend or wife. These people dedicated nearly 100% of their waking hours toward becoming experts in their fields. Einstein's most productive year was when he left his wife and family in another country for a few years.

If you want to become the 'best in the world' at something, you are going to have to spend virtually every waking hour in effortfull study. If you want to become an 'expert' i.e. really good or even great, you'll probably need about 10 years of full time study. As Johnny asks, how many hours per day did you play / practice guitar? I have been friends with Johnny since we were children and personally witnessed the effortfull study he took part in. For many years nearly every single time I saw him or talked to him he was practicing, always challenging himself to learn any new tune he came across. He played regular bass, upright bass, and guitar. I had played guitar for many years and he started and surpassed my skill level in just about a month, starting from never having played a guitar. But I practiced probably 1 hour per week, which is barely enough to refresh the memories of the things you have learned.

I dont think you give yourself enough credit, its easy to just say 'oh, I dont have the physiological make up to be great at such and such' but in reality that is almost always not the case, even very short people can play professional basketball. I think this is why this attitude about attributing everything to 'innate' ability is so popular, it gives people ready excuses for their own lack of skill. In reality, its perfectly reasonable to not choose to want to spend 10 years and thousands of thousands of hours of directed study to become an expert at something and it gives us that much more reason to admire people who do.

[RationalBiker]

You are presuming guitars were designed for people with big hands, they were not.

On the contrary, I make no such assumption. As a matter of fact, I know that they make different sized guitars. I have a OOO sized Martin myself.

How small are your hands exactly?

Why do you ask this now? Do you think this is important information for coming to the conclusion you already made about me? Had you started you initial response to me asking this, rather than presuming, our conversation might have lead in a different direction. Since I'm not sure how you define "freakish", I don't think it would matter (according to your position) if as an adult I had the hands of a six year old (like Mozart).

Rational approach based on what standard? Yours?

Yes, when it comes to my life. Each man must decide, within the context of his own life, what is rationally best for his life. In most cases, the abandonment of family, friends, food and sleep do not fit that bill. That is why I said most, not all. I have comments to make about some geniuses and achieving a happy fulfulling life, but I'm reserving that until I do some more research.

How many hours a day did you play guitar?

Do you think this is another question you should have asked before coming to any conclusions about me? Is this important evidence? Again, had you asked this question first, the course of our conversation might have been different.

[RationalBiker]

Rational biker, are you then asserting that one must have large hands in order to play guitar 'great'?

No. My assertion (specifically) would be that it would be advantageous for a player to have longer, thinner fingers versus shorter, stubbier fingers. Also, while hand size was the only example I gave above, but it's not the only thing that could inhibit "great" guitar playing.

That best effort is probably going to be at least 10 years of *full time study* of directed practice and effort where you are constantly pushing yourself to excel beyond your previous limitations.

How can Mozart have become a child prodigy (read achieve greatness) at age 6 then? What was different about Mozart that allowed him to accomplish in 6 years, probably less in fact, what would take another person 10 years of "effortful study"?

I think we may also disagree on what constitutes "best effort". I think that "best effort" is something that is contextual to a person's life. I suppose I could instead say, I gave it the best effort I could within the context of my life.

As Johnny asks, how many hours per day did you play / practice guitar?

I practiced 2-4 hours a day, every day, for about 6 months, and then less than that as time went on because I was becoming unsatisfied with my progress. I played many days until my fingers met a threshold of pain I found unacceptable. That slowly improved as they toughened. Although I improved, I was not seeing near the results I had seen from others who claimed to have spent similar time, but had achieved greater results. I was just not "getting it" like some folks do. It was not practical, nor rational, for me at 39 years of age to abandon all the other things in my life in order to devote the time you suggest it requires to become great, assuming that I could even achieve greatness then (which I only assume for the sake of argument). Thus, I gave it the "best effort" I could given the context of my life.

Johnny may well be a fantastic bassist and more power to him. I only ever brought up the possibility of that being otherwise to prove a point about the lack of evidence we would each have had to support conclusions about the other.

I dont think you give yourself enough credit

I certainly credit you for at least presenting an argument and doing so in a non-insulting way. However, do you still leave yourself open to the idea that I may know much better than someone else (specifically you and Johnny) what I am capable of and what not? Is there some possibility in your mind that perhaps I do give myself the appropriate credit?

There are cases when I'm quite satisfied with letting people just believe what they want when I know they don't have the evidence to support their belief. In Johnny's case, he can believe what he wants to believe. Should he decide to apologize for the "coward" comment, perhaps I'll give him more consideration. But given the whole context of my life and the things I have experienced and done and how little he knows of me, it was a wholly ignorant and uncalled for comment.

[Moebius]

And again, this is a very 2nd handed attitude, what if you were the last human on the planet, and you were able to run a 4 minute mile? Would it still be a 'great' achievement?

If you were in fact the last man on Earth, then there is no way to determine greatness since there would be no point of reference. Greatness does not exist in a vacuum. It is a reference for how good you are at something relative to something else (be it the entire population of Earth, your country, your local community, or whatever). Also, explain to me how judging "greatness" on a relative scale translate into second handedness when I do not derive my worth, my values, or my self-esteem from the greatness (or lack thereof) of others, nor does doing so in any way imply that I consider myself incapable of greatness. It seems to me that you either have the meaning of second handedness confused, or you are making erroneous assumptions based on my statements.

My point is, regardless of whether other people are around or other people are doing it, some thing that takes years of dedicated effort and study to accomplish, even if everyone could accomplish, is still a great achievement. The 5 minute mile was chosen because it requires alot of directed effort and training to achieve, maybe 4 minute would be better, but certainly a 30 minute mile wouldn't be, because it requires no effort and training to achieve. I am basing 'great' on an objective benchmark that takes years of directed effort and study to achieve, which I think is really the only proper rational definition for it for an independent human being, you are basing it on what other people can do.

What you are failing to grasp here is that the very fact that a 5 minute mile requires a lot of effort and training is in and of itself a standard based on what others can do. Yes, it is objective. But it is also very arbitrary and does not automatically imply rationality. For a man with muscular atrophy for instance, a 30 minute mile may very well take a lot of dedication and effort. It would certain be an accomplishment, but that does not make him a great runner relative to the population. Again, the criteria for greatness here is "context" and "point of reference".

Because greatness does not exist in a vacuum, it is by definition relative. You can say "Wow I put in a great run today" in reference to your past performances regardless of the performance of others. But when you say "I am a great runner", it is naturally a comparison relative to others.

Oh, and lest we tread over old grounds again, I will repeat this: A relative standard and an objective standard ARE NOT mutually exclusive.

I have no interest in being 'better than other people' at the things I develop my skills in, but only interested in being really good at them for my own sake to achieve my own goals, I could not care less what other people are capable of and what bracket or percentage I fall in. As Aristotle wrote, a proper sense of one's self must be based on a reverent love for the truth. Considering one's self 'great' at something thus requires a rational objective assesment of what 'great' is and also where you stand in that continuum.

Whether or not you are interested in being better than others is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Honing your skills for its own sake or for the sake of a goal may very well be rational in some situations. In other situations --for instance in a competition-- having no interest in what other people can do is completely irrational if your goal was to win. It all depends on the context.

[Moebius]

I highly suggest reading the articles I referenced, all available scientific evidence does in fact suggest that virtually anyone with a normal healthy human mind could become a Bobby Fischer, and also probably a 100 meter dasher or a marathon winner. I would not claim, however, that virtually anyone can be an olympic gold medalist, since that scale is relative to particular other people, instead of an objective standard. One can still be a 'great' athlete, but not be an Olympic gold medalist. Virtually anyone can become 'great' or at the very lest an 'expert' on virtually anything, but they can not necessarily be better than *everyone* else, since that is where physiological differences most directly manifest themselves. However, as an objectivist, why would it matter how good you are compared to other people? You can still be great without being the 'best in the whole world'

Actually I have read the article you referenced on my own months ago. And frankly, you are drawing the wrong conclusions based on the article.

What the article is essentially saying is that there are far more chess prodigies today because WE NOW TRAIN THEM DIFFERENTLY, with computers that allows them to put in far more hours practicing progressively harder problems. And the conclusion of the article is that "effortful study" is the best way for a human to get better at a certain task. Note that I absolutely agree with this, based on my own experiences.

However what the article does not in any way imply is that everyone will achieve the same proficiency if they all trained this way. All it is saying is that they will be much better at something if they trained this way -- a fact that I am not disputing.

[Thales]

I dont think you give yourself enough credit, its easy to just say 'oh, I dont have the physiological make up to be great at such and such' but in reality that is almost always not the case, even very short people can play professional basketball.

Hey, now, listen, I think this entire conversation has gotten ridiculous. There is simply no way that anybody can be great. Greatness means, almost by definition, not just being better than average, but being the cream of the cream. It means being stupendously brilliant at what you do.

If you're going to argue that most people with dedication, thought and passion can improve and become really good at something, then I will agree with that, but greatness? Greatness is reserved for the few.

Your example of NBA players almost proves the point that raw abilities are required, because the average NBA player is something like 6 foot 6 inches tall. Right away that tells you that height is selected for. I know of only two "short" NBA players, Spud Webb, and I can't recall the other guy's name. I'll bet you there are lots of short guys, or average height guys who are passionate about being an NBA player, more so than many who are in the NBA, and yet you almost never see them in the NBA, and there are a lot more men of average height in the world. I'm sure that lots of these guys are much better athletes than your average NBA player, and yet they can't play in the NBA because they lack a raw attribute, height.

I think this is why this attitude about attributing everything to 'innate' ability is so popular, it gives people ready excuses for their own lack of skill. In reality, its perfectly reasonable to not choose to want to spend 10 years and thousands of thousands of hours of directed study to become an expert at something and it gives us that much more reason to admire people who do.

I think we need to separate two issues here: under achieving and having the raw ability to be great. Those are two separate issues. Most people likely under achieve, but this doesn't mean that most people can be great. Very few people have the raw talent to be an Isaac Newton, or a Michael Jordan, and both of those men were fully dedicated to their respective fields.

I'm not trying to put a damper on achieving, and I'm not trying to down play anyone’s potential; I'm just trying to be realistic. As I've already pointed out, there is always the chance of improving ones raw ability.

[JMeganSnow]

Everyone has the potential to be great because there is only one ultimate defining factor for greatness: moral perfection, which everyone *can* achieve. Greatness of skill depends upon greatness of virtue. Greatness is not about being a great architect or a great musician or dancer or businessmen. Greatness lies in being a great human being.

[Moebius]

Everyone has the potential to be great because there is only one ultimate defining factor for greatness: moral perfection, which everyone *can* achieve. Greatness of skill depends upon greatness of virtue. Greatness is not about being a great architect or a great musician or dancer or businessmen. Greatness lies in being a great human being.

Greatness requires moral perfection?

Now we're venturing into fictional territory (ie. Roarke, Galt). I'd like to hear who among the living you would consider a great person. I can't think of any one that I would consider "great" at their respective field that is morally perfect. And please, do explain why skill is necessarily, rationally, dependent on virtue? Any one virtue in particular? Or all of them?

Meanwhile, I think I will stick with the being extremely good at something definition.

[Matus1976]

No. My assertion (specifically) would be that it would be advantageous for a player to have longer, thinner fingers versus shorter, stubbier fingers. Also, while hand size was the only example I gave above, but it's not the only thing that could inhibit "great" guitar playing.

There are certainly physiological differences which can make it easier to become great at something, but there are few physiological differences which make it *impossible* to become great at something

How can Mozart have become a child prodigy (read achieve greatness) at age 6 then? What was different about Mozart that allowed him to accomplish in 6 years, probably less in fact, what would take another person 10 years of "effortful study"?

The articles I linked to address this question, but basically what music Mozart was writing at this age was not very good, let alone the masterpieces he later composed. Also, historians believe that his father exaggerated the young age at which he accomplished these things. Additionally his father controlled and directed the study, so that even at a young age Mozart had many thousands of hours of practice and effortful study. Again I recommend researching the question, much of the information surrounding child prodigies is mythical, much of the amazing progress of child prodigies comes from domineering parents who force children to practice practice practice at very young ages, conversely much of the ability of child prodigies which later turn into great adults also comes from the fact that they spent many hours practicing their craft *while* they were physiologically developing (brain and body) Very little of what child prodigies accomplish actually come from some innate born in gift that gives them a whopping advantage over every one else.

I think we may also disagree on what constitutes "best effort". I think that "best effort" is something that is contextual to a person's life. I suppose I could instead say, I gave it the best effort I could within the context of my life.I practiced 2-4 hours a day, every day, for about 6 months,

Exactly, 2-4 hours per day is not enough to become a 'great' guitarist, i.e. world class historical etc. 2-4 hours would probably be the time you spend per day *not* practicing. Additionally, the type of practice is important, as again many of those articles and the scientific evidence suggests, one must perpetually push themselves past their existing skill level.

and then less than that as time went on because I was becoming unsatisfied with my progress. I played many days until my fingers met a threshold of pain I found unacceptable.

Thats about when I stop too

That slowly improved as they toughened. Although I improved, I was not seeing near the results I had seen from others who claimed to have spent similar time, but had achieved greater results. I was just not "getting it" like some folks do.

This is a very loaded term. I think 'getting it' is essentially something very similar to what Rand describes in the art of fiction as a masterful subconscious atomized recognition and response, what great writers are able to do after many years of practice and study. I know from the variety of things I have learned that the 'getting it' always comes, eventually, once some odd aspect is grasped or some variable which I was not consciously aware I suddenly understand. I dont think it is rational to attribute not getting it to some innate physiological limitation in your mind, it might be more difficult for some people, and take longer, but as long as you have a mind which functions, is able to grasp concepts and integrate them, then pretty much anything is open to be grasped.

It was not practical, nor rational, for me at 39 years of age to abandon all the other things in my life in order to devote the time you suggest it requires to become great, assuming that I could even achieve greatness then which I only assume for the sake of argument). Thus, I gave it the "best effort" I could given the context of my life.

I think that is perfectly understandable, I would like to be able to play guitar well, but I don't have any desire to become 'great' I'd love to be able to have the physical agility of Jackie Chan, but he spent his entire life developing that ability. I'd love to be as physically fit as Bruce Lee in his prime, but he also spent his entire life developing his physical stature. I'd love to be as mentally fit as Ayn Rand and as unique and as original as Aristotle, but all of these things take many many years to develop and perfect. Acknowledging that we live a limited life span and have a finite amount of time does not mean we need also to attribute greatness to innate physiological advantages.

I certainly credit you for at least presenting an argument and doing so in a non-insulting way. However, do you still leave yourself open to the idea that I may know much better than someone else (specifically you and Johnny) what I am capable of and what not? Is there some possibility in your mind that perhaps I do give myself the appropriate credit?

Of course, but the fact that you stated you 'only' (I use that light heartedly) practiced 2 - 4 hours per day suggests otherwise, as do your comments in general, that basically to become great at guitar playing would require too much of your life and not provide enough of a payoff. So while your smaller hands and other issues might make it more difficult, even if you had long thin fingers, you would still need to practice 3 or 4 times as much to be 'great' at it.

Actually I have read the article you referenced on my own months ago. And frankly, you are drawing the wrong conclusions based on the article. What the article is essentially saying is that there are far more chess prodigies today because WE NOW TRAIN THEM DIFFERENTLY, with computers that allows them to put in far more hours practicing progressively harder problems. And the conclusion of the article is that "effortful study" is the best way for a human to get better at a certain task. Note that I absolutely agree with this, based on my own experiences.However what the article does not in any way imply is that everyone will achieve the same proficiency if they all trained this way. All it is saying is that they will be much better at something if they trained this way -- a fact that I am not disputing.

Your assessment does not coincide with the conclusion of the authors of the article, nor the entire theme of the article. In fact nothing in that article, or any others, suggests that these are merely *more efficient means and developing innate ability* but in fact suggest, over and over again, that innate ability plays very little role in the development of expertise, and that yes, essentially anyone can become and expert at virtually anything. I think you should re-read the article, as it concludes:

The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born. What is more, the demonstrated ability to turn a child quickly into an expert--in chess, music and a host of other subjects--sets a clear challenge before the schools. Can educators find ways to encourage students to engage in the kind of effortful study that will improve their reading and math skills?